Adams v. Manglicmot

Background

Herron A. Adams, an inmate at California Training Facility, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The court reviewed the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are legally insufficient, frivolous, malicious, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Adams alleged that he had a remote head injury causing grand mal seizures and that his prior prison records required ground-floor housing and a lower bunk. He alleged that, after arriving at California Training Facility on February 28, 2018, RN Lina Manglicmot and an unidentified screening supervisor did not provide the required housing, and Officers P. Lozano and J. Hardian refused to change his assignment. Adams then fell from the upper bunk during a seizure on March 1, 2018, and alleged that Lozano refused to call medical staff.

Adams also alleged that RN Anudokem refused to provide pain medication prescribed after a later seizure; that RN Deluna and RN A. Coleman refused to reorder his hypertension medication after he had gone without it; that LVN Binuluna failed to provide seizure medication and later gave him the wrong medication; that Officers Botello and Castillo Jr. used overly tight restraints and interfered with an MRI appointment; and that Officer Flores falsely reported that Adams had refused seizure medication. Adams also sued Warden Koenig, RN Mislang, and Chief Medical Executive Posson based on their handling of grievances, and named RN Hanna and John Doe 1.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court held that the following allegations stated potentially valid Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs:

- Manglicmot, Lozano, and Hardian allegedly refused on February 28, 2018, to provide Adams with a lower bunk in a ground-floor cell despite knowing about his seizure history and prior housing restrictions. - Lozano allegedly refused on March 1, 2018, to contact medical staff after Adams had a seizure, fell from the upper bunk, bit his tongue, and experienced severe pain and a headache. - Anudokem allegedly refused on August 17, 2018, to provide prescribed pain medication. - Deluna and Coleman allegedly refused on or about September 21 and 24, 2018, to reorder hydrochlorothiazide even though they knew Adams had been without his hypertension medication for 28 days.

Claims and Defendants Dismissed

The court dismissed with leave to amend the claim that Binuluna violated the Eighth Amendment by giving Adams the wrong “keep on person” medication for 28 days. The court said the allegation that Binuluna deliberately gave him the wrong medication was conclusory, but indicated that the problem might be corrected by an amended complaint.

The court dismissed with leave to amend the claims against Hanna, because the complaint made no allegations about her; Flores, because the allegations about his medication report contradicted each other; and John Doe 1, under the court’s discussion of identifying an unknown defendant through discovery. The conclusion also states that the following claim was dismissed with leave to amend: the claim concerning Binuluna’s dispensing of the wrong medication.

The court dismissed with prejudice the remaining claims and defendants identified in its conclusion. It dismissed the claims concerning Binuluna’s failure to provide phenytoin, Deluna’s response to Adams’s July 5, 2018 pain complaint, and the allegations against Officers Castillo Jr. and Botello concerning restraints, the van ride, the soiled diaper, and the rescheduled MRI. It also dismissed Warden Koenig, RN Mislang, and Chief Medical Executive Posson with prejudice because their alleged involvement was limited to the grievance process. The remaining defendants listed as dismissed with prejudice were Castillo Jr., Botello, Koenig, Mislang, and Posson.

Order and Next Steps

The court ordered service of the complaint and the order on Manglicmot, Lozano, Hardian, RN Robert Deluna, Anudokem, and Coleman. Adams was given 28 days to file an amended complaint. If he did not amend, the original complaint would remain operative and the case would proceed only on the claims the court found cognizable. The order also set deadlines for defendants’ dispositive motions, Adams’s opposition, and defendants’ reply, and authorized discovery.

Classification Note

This is a procedural order because it is a preliminary prisoner screening decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Although the court identified claims that could proceed, it did not decide the ultimate merits of those claims.